Maryland would benefit from safer energy

Exelon personnel and contractors at the Quad Cities Generating Station perform routine refueling and maintenance on one of two nuclear reactors at the plant along the Mississippi River near Cordova, Ill. An energy subsidy package in the Illinois legislature saved the plant from closing in late 2016. (Chris Walker/Chicago Tribune)

Exelon personnel and contractors at the Quad Cities Generating Station perform routine refueling and maintenance on one of two nuclear reactors at the plant along the Mississippi River near Cordova, Ill. An energy subsidy package in the Illinois legislature saved the plant from closing in late 2016. (Chris Walker/Chicago Tribune)

In his recent commentary (“The need for nuclear,” July 15), former Constellation executive Mike Wallace advocates for 20 or more new nuclear power plants in this country by 2040. While he admits that natural gas power is more economical, he did not mention that wind and solar energy are now cheaper and safer than nuclear power.

Natural gas would be cheaper yet if the proposed export terminal at Cove Point in Southern Maryland and other places were not permitted. Why should the groundwater of our country, polluted by excessive gas fracking, be sacrificed so that energy tycoons can get richer by exporting it? Exports make prices higher for consumers, according to the law of supply and demand.

Nuclear power and natural gas exporting are both bad deals for the public, but our Republican governor, Larry Hogan, has so far refused to order a safety study for the Cove Point gas export terminal, now under construction. If more citizens would call the governor and ask for a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) at Cove Point, which may scuttle the project, perhaps natural gas prices can be kept low enough to discourage plans for costly and risky nuclear power.